David Miller wrote:
>>What about your perspective that there
>>was no fall of man in the garden?
>>Isn't that part of modern pop theology?
John wrote:
>Why ask that question?
Because I was surprised to hear you say that there are no pop theologies in
this forum. I would consider a disbelief in the fall of man to be pop
theology.
So what? I strive for that which is sensible in light of my understanding of scripture. But maybe I do not know the doctrine of the fall? Teach it to me David. It's Miller time for the truth !!! What was man, prior to this "fall," David? How was he different from us today? What in man's human nature is counted as "fallen?
Do you consider your theology about there not being a fall to be orthodox?
What about you, Jonathan, and Lance too, and Bill Taylor? Do you guys
consider this theology of no fall of man to be orthodox? It seems to me
that this fall of man doctrine is a much more important consideration than
the eternal sonship doctrine.
Tha's it David -- introduce so many variables into this discussion that staying on track eventually becomes impossible. One being more important than the other. For you, maybe. For me, each is equally important,
Out of respect for my friends in the Righteous Triad (I like that more than "liberal, don't you?), I believe that I am the only one who has fallen from the "fall." It fits in with the equation Lance, Jonathan, Billy T and poor old John Smithson.
John wrote:
>You have heard this before
>-- where and when?
I have heard it many times for the last 20 years, especially from theistic
evolutionists. It has gained popularity as evolutionary theory as gained
acceptance as the best explanation for origins.
I like your tactics. We are not having a discussion. We are having a tactical echange for the sake of others. An so you try to force me onto the defensive with the "pop theology" charge; you try to tie my view to others, hoping to pounce onto some revealed confusion-in-the-ranks as the lefties move to counter The Prophet's guilt by association maneuver; you advance this "guilt by association" theme by comparing my views to "theistic evolutionshists"; and in the next paragraph, you will associate me with the Church of Christ -- another "guilt by association" aspect of your "argument.
So, do me a favor and give me some of these quotes theistic evolutionist community that preaches what I presented. After doing this, please answer this quesiton: " so what?"
John wrote:
>Speaking for myself, it came from the realization
>that I could not demonstrate a "fall" in terms of
>human nature in the life of Adam.
So from your perspective, does your lack of ability to demonstrate it mean
that it is false? Certainly. Your use of the prejudicial question is outstanding, I might add. Do you accept the Church of Christ hermenutic concerning
"silence of Scripture"? No. All that the silence of the scriptures proves is that the scriptures are silent (on a particualr point.)
John wrote:
>I do not believe in "plan B" creation theology.
So do you believe that God planned for Adam to sin, I believe that the Son of God was pointed from before the foundations of the world to enter our space, learn our ways, become like in order to best serve us, die and be raised -- all because we share in the actions of Adam; all because we did (do) exactly what he and the Rib did and created him and the
earth so that he would definitely sin? I beleive that from God's point of view, He knew of Adam's sinning before Adam was created -- apparently you and I disagree on this, as well Adam had no choice in the matter of
sinning, no power to resist sinning? Do you reference events sins (drunkenness, cusing, adultery), sins of the character (selfishness, laziness, envy, covetousness, seeking our own, pride, conceit, bigotry and the like), sins of omission or rebellion against God?
David Miller.
